A Defence of Don Cherry

Coach's Corner should be axed because of its pitiful content and Cherry's prison-stripe suits. (He plays at being just a plain guy, but his clothes scream exhibitionist.) For the sake of the national game, Cherry should go. However, it makes me more than a bit uncomfortable to hear calls for his head because of political incorrectitudes. Only in Canada would criticisms of hockey players bring an investigation by the Commissioner of Official Languages. We even have Jean Augustine, minister of state for multiculturalism, quoted as saying, in relation to Cherry: "The government will not tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society." What? The government will not tolerate free speech if someone happens to object? Who follows Cherry to the gallows? Tommy Schnurmacher? John Ralston Saul? Don Cherry is a conceited popinjay whose last creative idea was that players should wear jocks. But his braying, like it or not, is fair comment. Governments and commissioners should butt out.

Given revelations about the spirit of expression enjoyed under the former Privacy Commissioner as well as the Crown corporation, VIA Rail, perhaps it is time for a primer to be sent out to Federal senior managers about the Charter of Rights.

I will have to ensure I am appearing as "a conceited popinjay" regularly as a best defence. I was impressed by the article for that alone. Are there popinjays that are not conceited? You know who we should call a popinjay? Our favourite Scot in Truro. The very dab, the very semblence of popinjay. Especially during a knee level tackle during martinis.

That insensitive remark - comparing Cherry to a popinjay, even a "conceited" one - was offensive to popinjays everywhere. Now, tell me, to which federal department do I write to ask for an investigation? Surely in Canada, there must be some government department that protects "vain and talkative persons" - oh, wait now, that would be the House of Commons, wouldn't it?

Some might argue that Jean Augustine’s statement that the government will not tolerate “dissonance” in Canadian society, is exactly the kind of chilling remark expected from the true believers in this new "liberal moral orthodoxy"(small or large “L” liberal, it doesn’t matter, since the Liberal Party of Canada from Trudeau forward, can claim authorship), used by its adherents to suppress dissent from, or opinions that conflict with, this orthodoxy. This is especially so if these conflicting views can be seen as “traditional” and therefore equated (whether true or not) by these believers with “stereotyping”.

Some would argue that this “new moral orthodoxy” is, in part, a fictitious creation of a deliberately unchecked activist judiciary, who have been allowed by the Liberals to control and, in these judges' view, advance social policy, through an ever increasing expansion of fictitious “rights” found by them to “exist” in certain alleged “protected” groups under the Charter. The citizenry in all public statements and actions, are expected to respect and believe in these new found "rights", not because they actually do, but because these "rights" are now said, by a few mostly unelected intelligentsia, to be "the law of the land".

I’m no big fan of Cherry and he’s starting to grate on me, but these adherents to this new orthodoxy strive to paint Cherry as an “old-school dinosaur”, whose opinions are alleged to be based “stereotypes”, and therefore invalid regardless of the “facts” which he uses to support them. In fact, the (Jean) Augustinians would say: “the facts be damned”; for even if what he said is factual, the problem this orthodoxy has with his views, is not the factual basis for them, it is his apparent need and desire to express them publicly, which, the Augustinians would say, can only lead to “dissonance” in this very Liberal, “consonant” society.

The liberal faithful would argue there is no “value” in this society for the expression of that kind of opinion. Since Cherry’s opinions add no “value” to society, in this orthodoxy’s view, these opinions must be suppressed. While his opinions do not rise to the level of “promulgating hatred” against an “protected” group, he should still be labeled as a “hate monger”, just to make the point; and while he can’t be prosecuted for his remarks, he can be punished in other ways: by harassment, economically and by public derision. He is to be made an example out of, for all others of “traditional” viewpoints who might have a “bully pulpit” or hold some other public position, so that they think “jeez, if it can happen to Cherry for just saying that about “French guys”, wow, I better watch what I say or even think!”- that’s the message meant to be sent out in all of this fuss.

And this precious Charter of Rights, well, surely you know that this orthodoxy would state that its not meant to “protect” the likes of Cherry. How can “worthless” opinions, however right, be “protected” if they create “dissonance” in this Liberal society, especially if the high priests and priestesses say, without proof, these opinions are “hateful” or “hurtful”? And so what if the likes of Cherry do have “protection” under the Charter, just let him try to invoke it – the true believers will fight him all the way, using your tax dollars, in the “public good”, of course.

Kinda makes you think of that poor schmuck Kempling in B. C., doesn’t it, Al? But I’m sure Kempling isn’t making $1M plus a year to console himself with - he just has his faith somehow that he is in fact, the real true believer. Cold comfort,I guess you would say. Ironic, isn't it?

And the hilarious thing about all this fuss, is that Cherry's being publicly pilloried for "lumping in" the "French guys" with the "Europeans", as if it's taken as a given that everyone knows the "Europeans" are truly "wimps" - I guess the "Europeans" are not a group worthy of protection under this orthodoxy.

Feeds

Search

Articles

Pick any day's tunes as heard on CBC Ottawa's All in a Day hosted by my personal emailing buddy, Brent Bambury. You won't find a better music selection on radio anywhere - certainly not on the deeply dowdy CBC.

From Jan to March 2006, I tried a group humour blog with others on the subject of Canadian politics. It did not last but the posts were worth keeping. #16 was banned. There were no comments. It was at www.shadowcabinet.ca.